Calcutta High Court Refuses To Quash Criminal Proceedings Against Parties Accused Of Outraging Modesty Of A Scheduled Caste Woman

The Calcutta High Court on Wednesday dismissed a revision application to quash criminal proceedings against the petitioners, who were charged under various sections of the IPC and Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989, for outraging the modesty of a woman belonging to a scheduled caste community.

In holding that the case must proceed to trial since a prima facie case had been made out against the petitioners, a single-judge bench of Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) held:

“The alleged incident in this case took place in the complainant’s courtyard within public view and there are witnesses to the incident (Section 3(1) (x) of the SC & ST Act and there is also an allegation of tearing the blouse and pulling the saree of the complainant’s wife and other allegations. Admittedly the dispute relates to a land which is occupied by the complainant (Section 3 (1) (iv) of the SC & ST Act). Thus a prima facie case appears from the materials on record against the petitioners and there being sufficient materials on record, the case should be permitted to proceed towards trial.”

According to complainant, the petitioners and the complainant’s family had long-standing property disputes on the land resided on by the petitioner (“scheduled property”), which were pending before the Trial Court since 2009. During the pendency of these suits the petitioners had allegedly fraudulently sold the property, and in connection with these actions, further cases were pending against them as well.

It was further claimed by the complainant that on the date of the incident, the petitioners/accused persons forcibly entered the complainant’s property and verbally & physically abused her, tantamounting to outraging her modesty. It was further noted that the accused damaged the complainant’s household articles and committed theft, while hurling abuses at the complainant for belonging to a scheduled caste community, and threatened to evict her from her property, by bringing a bulldozer to her premises to demolish her house. The Court noted:

“The complainant belongs to the Scheduled Caste and on the date of occurrence, the accused persons forcibly removed the wearing apparel of the complainant from her person and also insulted the complainant and his family by using abusing language. The accused persons have also told people, that the complainant being a scheduled caste was sub-standard and they will evict the complainant from the land forcibly and these words was uttered by the accused persons in a public place and the accused are now creating pressure in various form upon the complainant and her family members and other co-sharer to leave the premises where they are residing at present and also trying to evict them forcibly from their other properties. On the very date of occurrence, the accused persons also brought one bulldozer in order to demolish the house of the complainant and the house of the other co-sharers but the neighbouring people appeared at the spot and prevented the accused persons from demolishing the house. The accused persons went away by threatening the complainant and her other co-sharers that they will again return and will demolish the dwelling house and they will also evict them from the Scheduled land.”

According to the petitioners, they were not connected to the alleged incident and impugned proceedings were initiated based on deceit by the complainant with an intention to harass & blackmail the petitioner and to “squeeze out financial benefits” from them pertaining to certain financial transactions that had taken place between them regarding the pending land disputes.

It was submitted by the public prosecutor that the seriousness of offences in the present case merited further investigation, and should be allowed to proceed to trial.

Upon hearing the arguments of all parties, the Bench observed that the materials on record were satisfactory for the current case to proceed to trial, and that a prima facie case had been made out against petitioners.

In dismissing the revision application, the Court directed the Trial Court to refer the matter to the District Legal Services Authority for mediation, due to the numerous settlement and purchase agreements and disputes between the parties.

Case: Vikas Kumar Bajoria & Anr. Vs The State of West Bengal & Anr

Coram: Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul)

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 183

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment